delendum

As a former Lord High Communicator of the Mushroom Kingdom, I can certify that 98% of the people posting in this thread are doing so because they were sent here by us - with the remaining 2% being dealt with as we speak. You are correct in claiming everything is orchestrated, and this thread is no exception. As such, any advice contained in this thread is merely a scripted attempt to sabotage your efforts. I encourage you to continue to query people and spread the truth. The citizens of CN must be awaken and reclaimed from the mighty grip of MK's propaganda machine. It is indeed no easy task, but you have shown yourself to be worthy of this quest. As you probably figured out by now, by posting this reply I will be branded a traitor of MK and sentenced to Eternal ZI. It is with regret that I confess my inability to assist you further, with the future showing itself to be very uncertain and gloomy for me at this point. However, should I survive, I shall ride alongside in the name of truth! Sail true, noble warrior! And may Buddha bless the UBD, for it is showing itself to be the only alliance brave enough to embrace resistance. As for me, it's time to face my punishment, for I can already hear Archon's acolytes creeping at the doo.sdf,. .b fbd t.hb.HELPDSdhf bkdjbsdgn HELP THEY ARE dkfn gvb c,/gb....

[quote name='Proko' date='10 April 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1270863471' post='2254893'] Either we are going to respect the will of our treaty partners or we aren't. If your perception of us is correct, that we are this irrational monster that you're painting us to be, then one treaty with SF, or two treaties with SF, etc. would not necessarily matter. If we are going to ignore our treaty partners, then they are going to be ignored regardless of quantity. Right? I don't see why not. Additionally, there is no indication, from my perspective in Polar leadership as well as yours in Viridia, that Polaris will be signing treaties with any members of SF in the near future besides the Aqua twins. Unless you know something I don't. Diffuse as the defenses supplied by Polar/Fark leadership, Polar membership, and interested bystanders may be, you haven't exactly labored to disprove them. This treaty is effectively a NAP. But for intellectual exercise, I'll give you another. Without this treaty, Fark runs the risk of being attack by Polar in a fit of irrationality. With this treaty, Fark runs the risk of being attacked by Polar in a fit of irrationality. Given that your perception of us as this wantonly aggressive machine is correct, and I would emphasize it is not, then Fark is basically making Pascal's Wager. They don't know if we'll turn into the Hulk, but in case we do, better to have a document saying we won't attack them than to not have one. There, now you have another defense of the treaty. [/quote] And so the thread has been won.

[quote name='Thrash' date='09 April 2010 - 03:40 AM' timestamp='1270780836' post='2253801'] I don't see anyone shedding any tears, all I see is merely pointing out the hypocrisy of signing a treaty which involves "I"ntelligence, with someone who proved that is the least of their concerns. [/quote] A witty spin, I've got to say, but they're actually just crying over being retroactively betrayed by somebody they cancelled on a while ago in the middle of the war.

Congrats on a fine treaty. I'll have a cup of tears please, on the rocks.

It's been a very fun ride, all 854 days that I've been a part of it. I will admit, I never expected us to get this far. I joined MK a few days after I joined CN, and decided I'd just ride with it until we inevitably met our fate - die in a blaze of nuclear fire, crushed by the NPO (sounded strangely appealing). I figured I'd have plenty of time to check out other alliances once MK would be obliterated. Thanks for ruining my exploration plans, guys.

[quote name='Methrage' date='06 April 2010 - 04:59 AM' timestamp='1270526343' post='2249998'] If Gramlins do get hit though for continuing the war I imagine many will come back to the battlefield to help Gremlins, but many are fed up with this dragging on and don't want to go back to the battlefield to fight for something they don't believe important. On the flip side if this escalated many alliances with good relations with IRON have been rebuilding longer and aren't under any terms whatsoever so they could bring considering help if a new war escalates from this. Gremlins not holding any treaties means nobody has any obligation to help Gremlins from what results of actions they disapprove of. [/quote] Their lack of treaties is simply a matter of approach. They may not have the paper, but they still have the friendships that went behind most of their ties. In the end it's a matter of moral obligation, be it written or verbal. Admittedly it's easier to weasel out of a paperless situation, but I wouldn't count on that being the case with the people who call Gramlins friends. If you wouldn't discard a treaty because you disprove of certain actions, you wouldn't use it as an excuse to do so in this case either. That being said, I don't think anybody currently agrees with their stubbornness, and that's pretty evident since everybody decided to peace out and let them do their thing alone. However, since none of us will join Gramlins in beating IRON to a pulp, I'd think it's obvious that we expect the same in return. I'm sure IRON is able to fend for itself against an alliance with little over 60 members, at least to the point of reaching a decent agreement. Nobody is killing off anybody really, that's the whole point.

[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1270509399' post='2249684'] Get off my lawn! [img]http://safetybriefs.org/wp-content/uploads/old-man.jpg[/img] Yeah the curse of TDSM8 strikes again, MK will be next. [/quote] I'm not sure if you'd really want that, think of us as a cyst in Bob's stomach: if it breaks, then all that smugness and lulz will spread and infect most alliances out there.

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 April 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1270508249' post='2249651'] Those enablers are MHA & C&G, they dished out terms of a year to NPO and have repeated it. Except this time Gramlins are being allowed to hold IRON hostage by MHA & C&G who will attack anyone who helps IRON get out of the their perma war by Gramlins. [b]Crimes by C&G and allies since the Karma war:[/b] Draconian terms ☑ Banning of people from governments ☑ Holding an alliance in a permanent state of war. ☑ More draconian terms ☑ [/quote] You forgot to add "overall smugness" to our list of crimes. We also recently forced Vanguard to disband. Not only that, but we stipulated that most of them had to join us once their alliance was gone. Talk about worse than the hegemony indeed.

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1270508061' post='2249647'] Wait, you say us as if MK was the only one... There were 35 against 5.. I would be willing to bet, had it been MK + 4 vs TOP + 4 you would be the ones on the forums so called "whining." also really the victory isn't all that great or worth bragging on, the 5 did very well in taking your lumps and dealing them right back. Well the "kick the guy while he is already down alliances" like spar... didn't take much damage. but hey what bandwagone alliance does? Honestly TOP dropping from 1 to 20 isn't that horrible, guessing if there like the rest of modern CN have billions in warchest money to rebuild on. they will be back in the TOP soon I am sure. [/quote] So our victory sucks, some people that helped us were just band wagoners, and TOP will be back to the top soon. What is it that's upsetting you then? You should've stuck to being a Secksi Viking Wimminz Chaser if you ask me, now that was a niche I could get behind. This whole "be the opposition and argue about terms" thing isn't quite working out for you.

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 April 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1270463335' post='2248934'] Congratulations on allowing Gramlins to continue in their goal of dismantling and killing off IRON. Enjoy your party MK this will be waiting for you and your allies down the line. [/quote] Gramlins are a sovereign alliance, we didn't allow them to kill off IRON just as they didn't ask us for permission. Well you know what they say, he who waits, cares.

[quote name='Alterego' date='20 March 2010 - 10:11 AM' timestamp='1269079867' post='2231176'] People drift all the time, but cancelling during a war after watching them being taking apart and doing nothing is lame. Oh yeah they drifted apart, one has 11m NS and the other is passing 4m NS on the way down. One alliance put their infra before friends and one didnt MHA are the new ODN. The only people who think TOP started this war is MK and its puppets. If there was no war raging the attack wouldnt have happened unless you are saying MK was going to do what MHA did and sit back and watch their friends burn without lifting a finger. It wouldnt be the 1st time they did but I dont think it was the case this time. [/quote] Kind sir, you clearly forgot to mention that MK was gunning for TOP to begin with - a very important piece of the evil saga. This whole thing was a giant ploy if you ask me, an alliance such as MK would never get involved if they weren't 100% they were going to win, and it was obvious they would get involved when they virtually encouraged their numerous meatshields to start a global war. Please, tell the whole story.

A very helpful guide, filled with insightful information and visionary spirit. As a mere inexperienced padawan in the great galaxy of war, I am humbled, sir, humbled and grateful for your sharing of this priceless collection of knowledge. It is my sincere hope that you will carry the torch forward and continue to bless us with your wisdom.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 06:49 AM' timestamp='1266994353' post='2200952'] First, we entered to defend them, not the other way around. Simply because they left the field the fight never stopped for us. Second, we didn't request that they re-join because of the fact that they had left us on the field. Third, when they told us that they would re-join we asked them to declare on Fark since they are our biggest and strongest opponent. We were told that they couldn't handle Fark at the time so they declared on a meatshield. We all know how effective that is in gaining a tactical advantage, right? Shortly thereafter, even though they couldn't handle Fark, they declared on TOP, a larger alliance that was already outnumbered by a great deal. Over the past week they have stopped declaring new wars on GOD and started concentrating on TOP. So, no, I have not kept anyone in war at all. In fact I did the opposite. My counter declaration on Fark was to alleviate our allies in Terra Cotta for having to continue to defend us since they were left holding the bag with us. As far as the term goes, it doesn't matter what it is. The entire front exited on white peace. The rest of the front exited again tonight on white peace. We will not bend over and take it like happy fools simply because others, who got white peace, think we should surrender. [/quote] I do admit that you were steadfast allies in this war, however you pretty much made the same mistake Polar did before you: refused to compromise. Polar was fighting two sides at once, can you really blame them for trying to close one of their fronts? I'm fairly sure you knew about their intent in advance, why didn't you make the same attempts at securing peace for yourselves as well, while knowing this? While they did peace out while you're still there, and I can see how that would upset you, with this thread you've basically thrown a fresh bowl of rotten tomatoes on your former ally, knowing full well that the last thing they need right now is another PR wound. If nothing else, you have nothing to be upset about and all debts are settled between you. You say they screwed you, now you screwed them.

[quote name='mhawk' date='24 February 2010 - 06:47 AM' timestamp='1266994259' post='2200947'] Is there not another answer you can come up with to the accusation that Polar has deeply wronged many people that came to your defense on good will or as allies, other than "we have our reasons don't be quick to judge". Over and over you use very superficial excuses or side steps to that very direct question. It is pretty clear there was some secret deal behind the scenes for quite some time. You can't pretend to play super honorable victim and honor both sides of your treaties then make a secret pact with half the war and use all your forces on the other. More disturbing is you are utilizing what limited resources you have against the people that came to your defense. To that all you have to say is "whatever conclusions make you happy." Pathetic. [/quote] If you don't like how particular alliances handle fighting two sides at once, you could refrain from attacking one of their direct treaty partners so you wouldn't have to witness it to begin with.

[quote name='the dakotans' date='24 February 2010 - 06:45 AM' timestamp='1266994128' post='2200931'] It is sad to see a cancellation, but they didn't deserve you. I wish the sith the best of luck in the future. [/quote] Only IRON deserves the goodies.

[quote name='Bob Sanders' date='24 February 2010 - 06:42 AM' timestamp='1266993961' post='2200924'] Seriously? Superfriends was openly threatening NSO. I doubt they considered your opinion in the matter. [/quote] It's a good thing the NSO wasn't TOP, amirite?

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 06:41 AM' timestamp='1266993883' post='2200916'] Oh, you mean my alliance being pissed that the allies that we entered to defend went to peace and left us holding the bag? Yeah, you are completely justified in crediting us with that as a "bad move" on our part. Good job. I am beginning to believe that it is a systemic issue in Polar instead of a policy one if you are the best they have in this regard. [/quote] Pretty much how the NSO would never force their allies to remain in a war by virtue of refusing to accept something silly like doing a beer review?

[quote name='Epiphanus' date='24 February 2010 - 06:23 AM' timestamp='1266992826' post='2200810'] I don't feel bad for NSO at all. NSO claimed they wouldn't take peace until IRON got peace. Everyone is well aware that IRON will be one of the last getting peace, so NSO was holding the NpO in this war. It's not really smart for NpO to fight two fronts (not that the NpO has done many intelligent thing during this war) so they got peace. [/quote] Somebody stop this man, he's making sense!

Oh !@#$, it's bros! *delendum calls the van

I honestly thought this was another GGA announcement when I read "village". Regardless, good luck!

awww yeah, feels good man.

JB since you obviously forgot to inform MK about not only your intents, but most importantly the fact that you resigned, and as of writing this you are still masked as a member on our forums, would you be surprised if we decided to declare you something silly, like perhaps, a spy? Edit: apparently you did talk to Archon, though you could've posted a farewell of sorts.

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1266529145' post='2190261'] Again, you are not thinking objectively at all. C&G and friends were in fact an immediate threat, as you cannot deny that they would have gotten involved. It might have been a silly and unprecedente move on TOP an cos part, but it was not just paranoia as a lot of you claim. As to your analogy. More like a few of my mates are having a bit of a punch up with a few of yours. Me and a few friends are considering going in to help, but we can also see that you have more mates across the road, which vastly outnumber us, who are [s]waiting[/s]prepared to get involved. So a few of us decide to jump over there real quick, maybe gain a few knock outs so that the advantage you had will no longer be. Adding to this, this punch up all started when a few of or mates a bit further up the road came upon a few of your mates attacking a guy who was alone, and decided to get involved. Really? I always thought that order of importance followed a sequential patern throughout an OP. EDIT: changed wording to be a bit more objective [/quote] Haha way to spin it there. When TOP stated that they see us as a threat, it had nothing to do with the war.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1266496247' post='2189548'] So aggression clearly can't be such a huge faux pas for you guys then I'm going to ignore Denial and respond to the decent C&G/raider-side posters, because some of you can actually hold an argument without resorting to ad homs and lies. (And yes I realise the irony of the first part of that.) That's exactly what I said – C&G heard about the pre-emptive attack and pressured the other fronts to peace out to trap TOP/IRON into a war that they did not want. (The war they wanted was one in which the Polar coalition won.) Thanks for agreeing with me (apart from the 'sworn enemies' bit which is hyperbole). [/quote] What we did was reactionary. As they themselves stated, for their part, their main interest was bloodying up a perceived threat. I don't doubt that they wanted the Polar coalition to win, but only because achieving their personal goals involved being a part of it. We want our coalition to win just as much as they do. You're blaming us for taking steps to ensure we achieve that? [quote]Both of these things are true. Fault is shared, between TOP/IRON, C&G (or at least MK, not sure how many other people Archon told about the incoming attack) and NpO. Different action by any three of them would have stopped this front from opening.[/quote] And TOP would have continued to see us as a thread and eventually use another excuse to come after us. What exactly would that have solved as far as this particular issue is concerned? ([quote]in a few posts) There is a clear CB in TOP's DoW. You may not agree with it or think that it was sufficient reason for war, but saying that there isn't one is outright false. The CB is 'You were about to counter-attack us anyway so we're taking the deployment advantage and hitting you first'.[/quote] The CB could also be "we want to bloody you up and what you stand for". I don't blame you for picking the one you like best though. [quote]Seerow, just because I'm opposing you doesn't mean you have to go for character assassination. C&G are not angels in this front and your side's attempt to railroad anyone who dares to dissent is rather disappointing for a bloc which suffered 'media oppression' for so long.[/quote] Again, I don't understand what you expect of us. There is the pixel war and then there is the PR war, and both need to be fought. (I'm not referring to character assassination, don't get outraged just yet) [quote]It's not a bit much, if he really wanted peace and not just to manipulate the war into a lopsided one against TOP/IRON, to, when he heard of the incoming attack, inform TOP and IRON that the reason they were thinking of entering was about to disappear. Or at the very least to make sure that NpO did so. What Archon actually did – pressuring for a peace in the other fronts and not doing anything to avoid this front – has pulled his alliance, and all of his allies (not to mention the rest of the world), into a damaging war to serve (perceived) C&G strategic interests. The ally that they were supposedly helping (NpO) has been pulled onto both sides and lost 3M NS or so since the time that Archon could have avoided escalation entirely – as C&G claim to have wanted to do.[/quote] Wait, so it was somehow our job to inform TOP/IRON that their excuse to come after us is about to peace out? Look, things are very simple as far as we're concerned: you want to come after us, do it, but don't !@#$%* about it when you find out we can actually hurt you.

I'm curious about a couple of things. 1. Does this "willingness to reach peace" mean TOP & IRON (and whoever else) no longer considers us a threat? 2. If yes, what exactly got you to change your minds?